TOWN OF I N D I A L A N T I C
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES NO. 02-01
PRESENT: Robin Petersen, Chairman
Brian Dullaghan, Vice Chairman
John Allen, Member
Gus Carey, Member
Ray Disher, Member
George Gergora, 1st Alternate
Paul Gougelman, Town Attorney
Stan Krulikowski, Building Official
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
ABSENT: Brian Low, 2nd Alternate (excused)
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM
2. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Disher moved to approve Minutes No. 01-05. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
3. VARIANCE REQUEST
A. A variance request filed by Robert Doherty representing Dr. & Mrs. Rajiv Chandra regarding Lot 13 and part of Lot 12, Block 27, 1314 S. Riverside Dr. A variance is being requested to Code Section 17-88(2)(a) Setbacks – no fence, wall, partial fence or partial wall shall be constructed on front lot lines, nor in the front setback region. The effect of the variance is to enable the property owner to keep an existing fence in the front setback region.
Robert Doherty, representing the Chandras, distributed pictures of the subject property to be included in the record. He explained that the Chandras believed that the contractor had obtained a permit for the fence and were unaware that this was not done until after the fence was already in place.
Mr. Doherty stated that the house is “L” shaped with the garage jutting out front and requested a variance to allow the structure to remain in the front yard. He said that the fence had been there 2 ½ to 3 months and was 75’ back from the roadway. He maintained that there was some confusion with the definition of the front building line as defined in the Code.
Mr. Gergora verified that the variance was being requested to retain an existing fence that had been erected without a permit and not for additional fencing.
Mr. Doherty explained that it was the interpretation of the Town Planner that the front yard line followed the building line and maintained that this created an ambiguous situation when a part of the structure extended outward.
In response to a comment from Mr. Gergora concerning residential plan review by the Zoning and Planning Board, Attorney Gougelman clarified that the Board of Adjustment is the sole interpreter of the Code.
The Board discussed the definition of front lot lines and front yards and pointed out several instances where fences existed in the front of “L” shaped properties. Mr. Gergora maintained that such instances were rare and probably done illegally.
Based on their interpretation of the Code, the Board discussed whether a variance was necessary in this situation
Hugh Normile, 1316 So. Riverside Dr – the property directly to the south, observed that the fence is not objectionable and is actually an improvement on the previous conditions. He believed that a variance is necessary and he does support it in this case, but requested that the applicants be admonished for proceeding without a permit.
Mr. Gergora pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan determines the locations permissible for fencing based on safety and aesthetics. He maintained that the intent of the Code is that the front building line follow the outline of the structure.
Mr. Dullaghan moved to grant the variance request based on the fact that the front yard measurement is determined by that part of the residence most closely abutting the road.
Mr. Disher questioned whether the Board should grant a variance or determine that none is required.
There was no second to Mr. Dullaghan’s motion.
Mr. Gougelman clarified that if the Board makes an interpretation consistent with their discussion, there is no need for a variance.
Mr. Gergora maintained that there is no justification for the Board to decide that the front yard setback is measured from the garage to the street.
Mr. Dullaghan moved to interpret the code as determining that the front yard line is measured from that part of the main structure lying closest to the road.
Mr. Disher seconded.
In response to a question, Mr. Gougelman noted that he disagreed with that definition. He stated that although the Code is somewhat ambiguous, the interpretation has historically been made consistent with Mr. Washburn’s opinion that the front building line follows the front structure of the house.
In response to a question from Mr. Allen, the Building Official clarified that he would not have issued a permit based on the current policy. Mr. Krulikowski’s own interpretation however was consistent with that of the Board.
Mr. Normile recommended that the Board grant a variance and not make a policy change that might be inconsistent with the intent of the Code.
Motion for the Code interpretation carried with Mr. Petersen, Mr. Dullaghan, Mr. Carey and Mr. Disher voting “yes.” Mr. Allen voted “no.”
Mr. Gougelman clarified that the Board’s interpretation, in this case, is that the front yard runs forward from the front of the garage to the street, that no variance is necessary and that Dr. Chandra is required to get a fence permit.
Items B and C were withdrawn by the applicant.
B. A variance request filed by Douglas Marks representing the Cochran Group regarding lots 1-4 and 51-56, Block 39, Wavecrest Ave. A variance is being requested to Code Section 6-30(c)(1) – no major structure may be constructed seaward of the Brevard County Coastal Construction Control Line without a variance being granted.
C. A variance request filed by Douglas Marks representing the Cochran Group regarding Lots 1-4, 9-23, 35-37, & 41-56, Block 39, Wavecrest Ave. A variance is being requested to Code Section 17-127(6) - Side Yards on corner lots shall not be less than twenty (20) feet on the street side. The effect of the variance is to allow a balcony extending eight (8) feet into the side yard set back. A variance is also being requested to Sections 17-127(16) – Breezeways are defined as a clear, open, vertical area free of any construction; Section 17-127(5) – Front yards shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet in depth; and Section 17-127(7) – Rear yards shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet in depth. The effect of the variance is to allow a balcony extending four (4) feet into the breezeway area and the front set back area and the rear set back area on the corner units.
4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 PM.
____________________________
Robin Petersen, Chairman
______________________________
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary